IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x : JUDICIAL WATCH, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Civil Action : No. 95-0133 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, : : Defendant. : : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x Washington, D.C Tuesday, February 9, 1999 Deposition of DONALD FOREST a witness of lawful age, taken on behalf of the Plaintiff in the above-entitled action, before Amy K. Rose, Notary Public in and for the District of Columbia, in the chambers of Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola, 1st Floor, U.S. District Court House, Third and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001, commencing at 10:19 a.m. 2 APPEARANCES: On Behalf of the Plaintiff: LARRY KLAYMAN, ESQ. Chairman/General Counsel Judicial Watch 501 School Street, S.W., Suite 725 Washington, D.C. 20024 On Behalf of the Defendant: MARINA BRASWELL, ESQ. Assistant U.S. Attorney 555 Fourth Street, N.W., 12th Floor Washington, D.C. 20001 WILLIAM H. KYSELLA, JR., ESQ. Office of General Counsel U.S. Department of Commerce 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20230 On Behalf of the Court: HON. JOHN M. FACCIOLA, Judge Also Present: TOM FITTON, President Judicial Watch SYLVANUS HOLLEY, Videographer 3 C O N T E N T S EXAMINATION BY: PAGE Counsel for Plaintiff 4 FOREST DEPOSITION EXHIBITS: 1 - September 9, 1994 Wall Street Journal article 61 2 - September 12, 1994 Business Week article 63 3 - Delegation list, 1994 Presidential business development mission to China 72 4 - Washington Post article 101 5 - Associated Press article by Jonathan Salant 102 6 - 1994 appointment book for John Huang 103 7 - 1995 appointment book for John Huang 103 8 - 6/16/95 court order 136 9 - DNC Managing Trustee Events and Membership Requirements List 146 10 - 5/5/94 memo from Phipps re White House activities 147 11 - Memo to Sally Painter from Conowitz and Sockowitz dated July 18, 1994 180 12 - 7/25/94 letter from McAuliffe to Moss 196 13 - 8/6/93 Painter document sent to Moss 204 4 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 Whereupon, 3 DONALD FOREST 4 was recalled as a witness and, having previously been duly 5 sworn, was examined and testified further as follows: 6 EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 7 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 8 Q Mr. Forest, this is a continuation of your earlier 9 deposition and you are under oath. You realize you are still 10 under oath? 11 A Mm-hmm. Yes, I do. 12 Q When we concluded the deposition during the first 13 session, I was asking you about your notekeeping practices. 14 And just for purposes of refreshing your recollection and 15 bringing everything up to date, can you tell me whether in 16 the ordinary course of your duties at the Commerce Department 17 that from time to time you kept notes? 18 A Yes. 19 Q And what were the types of things that you kept 20 notes about? 21 A Typically, the notes would provide me with some 22 indication of follow-up action necessary as a result of 23 discussions in the meeting. 24 Q Now, you were in charge of the China desk, so to 25 speak, correct? 5 1 A Correct. 2 Q And in terms of your functions in working on 3 the China desk, you also kept notes in those functions, 4 correct? 5 A I kept notes of a variety of activities pertinent 6 to the desk, some of them with regard to meetings, some of 7 them with regard to a variety of tasks. 8 Q And who was responsible for keeping those notes, 9 for maintaining those notes? 10 A Me. 11 Q Where were they kept? 12 A The notes typically were kept in draft and then 13 usually used in the preparation of -- for instance, if I was 14 reporting on a meeting, I might do a reporting cable. 15 If, for instance, the Secretary or someone was 16 meeting with a foreign dignitary, the minister of trade, a 17 vice minister, whoever, I would take the notes, transcribe 18 them into a cable to inform my colleagues at the embassy in 19 Beijing as well as those who review cable traffic in the 20 diplomatic community, so folks in Washington as well, of what 21 transpired in the meeting. And then I would destroy the 22 notes. 23 Q Were there notes that you took while at the 24 Commerce Department that have never been destroyed? 25 A No, I discarded most of my notes. I don't 6 1 typically keep notes because they usually -- I take notes for 2 purpose of directing action following from a meeting or to 3 report in an official capacity on a meeting. 4 I do not keep a long chronicle of notebooks of 5 everything that transpires by phone, by meeting, whatever. 6 Q Well, you've said that you've discarded most of 7 your notes. I presume that some of the notes you have not 8 discarded. 9 A There could be some notes that I have in my office 10 from various meetings here and there. Yes. That's highly 11 possible. 12 Q Have you ever searched those notes in response to 13 the Judicial Watch FOIA requests which are the subject of 14 this case? 15 A Yes. 16 Q When did you search those notes? 17 A Searched everything in my possession, everything in 18 the office. I directed my staff to search everything, 19 including computer logs, buck slips, memoranda, all form of 20 draft notes and final memoranda, official documents, shortly 21 after receiving the request for searching documents. I think 22 it was shortly after the Secretary's mission. That mission 23 was in August, the end of August 1994. I recall receiving a 24 request shortly thereafter and a thorough search was done of 25 the office. 7 1 Q Between the time of our last deposition and today, 2 have you met with anyone concerning this deposition that 3 we're holding today? 4 A Met with anyone in my office or met with anyone 5 outside or -- 6 Q Anywhere. Have you discussed the deposition that 7 we're holding today with anyone since the time that we 8 postponed your deposition last time to today? 9 A I've discussed it with my superiors, informing them 10 of where I would be. I discussed it with staff. 11 Q Let's stop there. Which staff did you discuss it 12 with? 13 A I discussed it just a half ago, informed my staff 14 that I would be doing a deposition today. 15 Q Who did you have that discussion with? 16 A With my deputy. 17 Q And who is that? 18 A Cheryl McQueen. My secretary, Cheryl Anderson. 19 One of my staff people, Christie Stricker. The executive 20 assistant to the Under Secretary, Michelle O'Neill. 21 Q This was all today? 22 A Today and yesterday and the past week I have also 23 discussed it with other people. Yes. 24 Q And who else did you discuss it with over the past 25 week? 8 1 A I have informed a variety of people up the chain of 2 command. I can't recall who all of them are. It's important 3 for me to inform folks where I am. I have two vice ministers 4 coming into the department today which I am responsible for 5 coordinating input for, so I have to give a reason why I'm 6 not there. 7 Q Just who you can remember now, who did you inform 8 in the last week or so? 9 A Those are the principal people I can remember at 10 this juncture. My direct supervisor, Marjorie Serie, who is 11 the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Asia-Pacific. The acting 12 Deputy Assistant Secretary, Philip Avers, who I also informed 13 today, again, reminded him of where I would be. Deputy Under 14 Secretary Timothy Howser, because he was the acting Under 15 Secretary for a period last week and therefore had some 16 bearing on activities that would occur today, this week, 17 which I have indicated I would be responsible for. And I 18 can't think of anyone else. Those are the people that come 19 to mind. 20 Q Did you discuss with any of these people your 21 anticipated testimony here today? 22 A No. 23 Q Have you discussed your anticipated testimony with 24 anyone since the date of your first deposition? 25 MS. BRASWELL: Objection to the extent it calls for 9 1 attorney-client privileged information. 2 MR. KLAYMAN: I'm not asking for the substance. 3 JUDGE FACCIOLA: He can answer yes or no. 4 THE WITNESS: Yes. 5 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 6 Q Who was it that you discussed it with? 7 A I discussed it with my attorney. 8 Q And when did you have those discussions? 9 A Yesterday. 10 Q And how long were they? 11 A Forty-five minutes to an hour. 12 Q Was anyone else present during those discussions? 13 A Mr. Kysella. 14 Q Was any non-lawyer present during those 15 discussions? 16 A Not to my knowledge. No. There were only two 17 people in the room. 18 Q Now, just to refresh and bring everything current, 19 as head of the China desk, you were responsible for planning 20 trade missions. That was part of your duties and 21 responsibilities, correct? 22 A That's one of the duties. One of the duties. 23 Q What were the other duties and responsibilities? 24 A Well, broadly speaking, my responsibility is to 25 advise principals within the department. When I mean 10 1 principals, I mean those above me, those that are appointed 2 by the President, including from the Secretary down, the 3 Under Secretary of International Trade, and other officials 4 in the department about commercial policy towards China. 5 It's to coordinate commercial policy, to advise 6 these individuals about issues of concern to U.S. business 7 in China, including market access impediments -- or I 8 should say principally market access impediments, and to 9 formulate policy in coordination with colleagues in the 10 administration, including the State Department, the U.S. 11 Trade Representative's office, other offices that have a 12 bearing on U.S./China commercial relations. 13 Q When was the first time you know of that you 14 learned that a trade mission to China was planned? 15 A The trade mission in '94? Are you referring to 16 that mission? 17 Q Yes. In '94. 18 A Okay. I would say probably -- I remember that a 19 trade mission was being discussed earlier in the year, say, 20 June, but the final confirmation of dates really didn't occur 21 until, I would say, mid july. 22 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Excuse me. I need five minutes. 23 Excuse me. 24 MR. KLAYMAN: We're off the record. 25 (A brief recess was taken.) 11 1 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 2 Q How did that initial discussion of the China trade 3 trip in 1994 occur? 4 A A little vague to me now, but as I recall, we were 5 looking for an opportunity to send the Secretary to China. 6 In general, I think, at least at Commerce, we were concerned 7 about keeping this relationship on an even keel, that by 8 sending the Secretary on a high profile mission that that 9 would substantiate the goals and objectives of the policy 10 engagement for the administration. 11 So that's how these missions typically come about. 12 Missions are, in a very pragmatic sense, the embodiment of 13 advancing the administration's policy on the commercial side. 14 That's one manifestation of advancing commercial issues with 15 China. And so, thus, that's how this came about. 16 Q What I'm interested in is who participated in the 17 discussion, the initial discussion, and where did it take 18 place. 19 A I don't recall. 20 Q Roughly speaking, who participated in the initial 21 discussion? Who did you have these conversations with? 22 A Typically, these kinds of discussions would include 23 my chain of command. That chain of command at the time was 24 Deputy Under Secretary Rothkopf, Under Secretary Garten. It 25 might include the chief of staff, Rob Stein, although I don't 12 1 recall him being in the room very often. It could include 2 Melissa Moss, who was the head of the Office of Business 3 Liaison at that time. 4 They did not include my direct supervisor, Nancy 5 Patten. They did not include John Huang. They did not 6 include Charles Meissner, who was the Assistant Secretary 7 in my chain of command responsible for my division. 8 There was a sort of China core team of individuals 9 advising on this particular mission and it included myself, 10 Deputy Under Secretary Rothkopf, and Under Secretary Garten. 11 Q Why would these discussions not have included Nancy 12 Lynn Patten, John Huang and Charles Meissner? 13 A I don't know. 14 Q You ultimately reported to Charles Meissner, 15 correct? 16 A Ultimately reported. My first line supervisor was 17 Nancy Patten. 18 Q But after Nancy Patten, the next line of 19 supervision would be John Huang, correct? 20 A Well, there's -- he was not in the direct line of 21 supervision. It was Charles Meissner. In strict terms, the 22 people who signed my performance evaluation were Nancy Patten 23 and Charles Meissner, not John Huang. If Charles Meissner 24 was not in, John Huang would often become the acting 25 Assistant Secretary. 13 1 Q As Charles Meissner's deputy, correct? 2 A That's correct. Right. 3 Q So technically speaking, John Huang was in your 4 chain of command. 5 A Only when Charles Meissner was not in the office. 6 Q Are you saying that when Charles Meissner was in 7 the office, John Huang played no role in anything that you 8 were involved in? 9 A Marginal. 10 Q What do you mean by marginal? 11 A I can remember a handful of occasions when 12 discussing China issues with John Huang actually occurred. 13 As opposed to numerous occasions, weekly, with the other 14 individuals I first mentioned. 15 Q Why is it, to the best of your knowledge, was 16 Mr. Huang only included in a handful of discussions? 17 A I can, you know, offer speculation, but I don't 18 know the reasons. 19 Q What's your speculation? 20 A There were -- well, I think there were several 21 reasons. One, there was a concern from the Under Secretary 22 at the time that we basically had a China team and we had a 23 Taiwan team. 24 The Taiwan team, I believe, in his mind, was 25 Charles Meissner and John Huang. Those who would engage 14 1 Taiwan officials, those who would travel to Taiwan, those who 2 would generally deal with Taiwan policy would be those 3 individuals. 4 Under Secretary Garten, Deputy Under Secretary 5 Rothkopf rarely dealt with Taiwan issues. Instead, they 6 dealt with China issues. I did not deal with Taiwan issues. 7 I dealt with China issues. That's one reason. 8 The other reason is John Huang's position, I 9 believe, as I understand, was one of -- it was an 10 administrative position largely. He was, as I understand it, 11 tasked with working on budget and related administrative 12 issues, including personnel, for what was the Division of 13 International Economic Policy at the time, that name has now 14 changed, under Charles Meissner's direct supervision. 15 He had counterparts in each of the other three 16 divisions. In other words, principal deputy assistant 17 secretaries. His title was principal deputy assistant 18 secretary. He had three counterparts in the other three 19 divisions who did similar things, administrative, personnel, 20 running the shop, as it were. 21 So for those reasons, Mr. Huang was not really in 22 my chain of command for all practical purposes, nor did I 23 confer with him or seek his input on critical decisions 24 before the department. 25 Q Were you aware that Mr. Huang was receiving top 15 1 secret security briefings? 2 MS. BRASWELL: Objection. Lacks foundation. 3 JUDGE FACCIOLA: I'm sorry, Ms. Braswell. Would 4 you repeat your objection? 5 MS. BRASWELL: Lacks foundation. 6 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Does the witness know if he did 7 receive such briefings? 8 THE WITNESS: I knew that he was receiving 9 briefings from the Office of Intelligence Liaison. What 10 those briefings contained, what his security clearance was, 11 I have no idea. 12 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 13 Q How did you learn that he was receiving such 14 briefings? 15 A Typically, if I were to look at a calendar that 16 was being distributed amongst the offices, it's very much 17 common course for officials in the department to distribute 18 their calendars to line offices so they understand what 19 appointments these people have. Most officials simply bury 20 in their calendar each week an intelligence briefing. 21 I have an intelligence briefing every week. 22 My supervisor has an intelligence briefing every week. 23 The Under Secretary has an intelligence briefing every week. 24 And, thus, Mr. Huang -- that's pretty much how I would know 25 that. 16 1 Q Did you know what countries he was receiving 2 briefings on? 3 A No. 4 MS. BRASWELL: Objection. 5 JUDGE FACCIOLA: He already answered. He said no. 6 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 7 Q Now, in terms of these early meetings about the 8 China trade mission, I take it that Mr. Rothkopf, Mr. Garten, 9 Mr. Stein, Ms. Moss, that they were generally present? The 10 trade mission to China, 1994. 11 A I don't recall whether they were all present for 12 all meetings. I only recall that some subset of these 13 individuals were likely present for meetings. 14 Q Roughly speaking, how many meetings were held? 15 Just generally. 16 A I don't recall. 17 Q At least five? 18 A There could have been a number of other meetings of 19 which I was not aware. The ones I was involved in, there 20 could have been two or three or four. As the mission 21 approached, we obviously would meet with the Secretary more 22 frequently. 23 So in total, before the mission left, including 24 pre-briefs, policy discussions, meeting with industry, maybe 25 seven. That's a rough estimate. I really can't -- I think 17 1 that's -- you know -- that also includes meetings where we 2 might ask the Chinese ambassador to come in and meet with the 3 Secretary, for the Secretary to convey his priorities for his 4 mission. I am giving you the universe of meetings in which I 5 was involved with the Secretary. 6 Q Well, let's talk about the meetings where 7 Mr. Rothkopf, Mr. Garten, Mr. Stein, and Ms. Moss were 8 present. Roughly, how many would that general -- 9 A With the Secretary or without the Secretary? 10 Q Without. 11 A Without the Secretary? 12 Q Correct. Let's take it first without. Where these 13 individuals were present. 14 A There might have been -- and not necessarily all of 15 them, but some of them -- with my people in the International 16 Trade Administration the Under Secretary and the deputy Under 17 Secretary, the frequency of meetings was much greater because 18 they were my line supervisors. 19 Meetings with the Secretary's office, including 20 those and perhaps other individuals, Ginger Lew may have been 21 there -- I mean, you know, there were a lot -- there were 22 other individuals in the room, obviously. Could have been, 23 you know, eight or nine different meetings. 24 It's very typical to have trip planning meetings 25 for any trip the Secretary takes anywhere in the world. 18 1 Q And during some of these meetings, the participants 2 on the trade mission to China were discussed, correct? 3 A Well, everything relative to the mission was 4 discussed and status reports on every aspect and dimension of 5 the mission was discussed, what cities the Secretary would go 6 to and why, what themes should be emphasized, what outcomes 7 were sought, what kinds of companies might participate in 8 this mission. 9 Q And the criteria for selecting those companies was 10 also discussed? 11 A I recall discussions about the criteria of 12 selecting companies, yes. 13 Q And also discussed during these meetings was 14 whether or not certain intelligence information was necessary 15 to prepare for these trade missions? 16 A I'm sorry, I don't follow. Could you clarify your 17 question? 18 Q There were discussions in terms of what briefings 19 would be necessary from the CIA and other intelligence 20 agencies to prepare for these trade missions? 21 A Briefings for whom? 22 Q For Commerce Department employees. 23 A It's fairly typical that we would ask the agency to 24 arrange a briefing for the Secretary and senior officials of 25 the department on what was the current state of play in 19 1 U.S./China relations, what was the current state of play in 2 the Chinese economy, with Chinese industry, Chinese 3 priorities, the Chinese leadership, whatever. Yes. And, in 4 fact, while I can't recall the exact date of the agency 5 briefing, I'm sure one was done. 6 Q And it was discussed during these meetings who 7 would have access to that intelligence data inside the 8 department? 9 A Yes. At the time, my clearance was TS, top secret, 10 but it was not TS code word, so there were some briefings in 11 which I was not included because my clearance was not at the 12 right level. I now have a code word clearance, but I did not 13 at that time. 14 Q Now, you state that there were a handful of 15 discussions with John Huang present. Was that in these 16 eight or nine meetings that you've just described or 17 were those other additional meetings beyond the eight or 18 nine? 19 A No, it was not in these meetings. To my 20 recollection, it was not in any of these meetings. 21 Q Now, in these meetings, was intelligence -- 22 A I need to clarify, Mr. Klayman, if I can. There 23 were some meetings at the working level, and when I say 24 working level, the International Trade Administration level, 25 where the mission was discussed and there were 15 or 20 20 1 working level people in the room and Mr. Huang could have 2 been in the room, but I don't recall. 3 Q During these meetings, these eight or nine that 4 you've just described, various individuals had notepads, 5 correct? They were taking notes? 6 A I don't recall if they were taking notes. 7 Q You surely took a notepad to those meetings, did 8 you not? 9 A Mm-hmm. 10 Q Correct? 11 A Yes. 12 Q And you took notes during those meetings, correct? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Where are those notes today? 15 A As I indicated, I would often take those notes and, 16 for instance, if I created a note in the lead-up to the 17 mission, for instance, for example, where I was asked to 18 advise our embassy that the Secretary wanted to do X in X 19 city, I would take that instruction and call the embassy in 20 Beijing, likely, send a fax, whatever. But I don't -- I did 21 not hang onto those notes. I discarded them. 22 Q Was there a policy in your division to discard 23 notes? Was there a document destruction policy that you know 24 of to discard notes? 25 A There is no particular guidance to the offices as 21 1 to keeping notes, discarding notes. No. I know of no policy 2 instructing officials regarding notekeeping. 3 Q During the course of your duties and 4 responsibilities as head of the China desk, have you ever 5 stored notes in file folders? 6 A I've stored cable traffic. I have stored 7 memoranda. I have stored incoming correspondence. But, as 8 I said, I don't keep notes. I don't keep draft notes. I 9 discard them. 10 Q Who was your administrative assistant or secretary 11 during the period of planning of the first China trade 12 mission? 13 A There were two: Audrey Isaacs, who is now 14 retired -- 15 Q How is that spelled? 16 A I-s-a-a-c-s. 17 Q Does she live in the Washington, D.C. area? 18 A I believe so. 19 Q In Virginia, Maryland or the District? 20 A I think Washington. 21 Q Do you know where she lives? 22 A I do not. And Cheryl Anderson, A-n-d-e-r-s-o-n. 23 She lives, I believe, in Maryland. 24 Q Does she still work for the department? 25 A She still works in my office. 22 1 Q Still works for you? 2 A That's correct. 3 Q And one or both of these individuals were in charge 4 of storing notes and correspondence and other things for you, 5 filing? 6 A They were responsible for keeping certain kinds of 7 correspondence and when I use the term correspondence, I mean 8 it broadly. Correspondence to include travel orders, to 9 include vouchers and subvouchers, to include taxi receipts, 10 to include time and attendance records. But typically, every 11 officer in my office is responsible for keeping their own 12 files. 13 We do not keep a central file cabinet of files. 14 Information is too voluminous to keep a central file. 15 Officers are responsible for keeping their files. Every 16 desk officer in my officer is responsible for keeping their 17 own and I am a desk officer for all intents and purposes. 18 Q So you kept your own files in terms of 19 recordkeeping during the period of the first China trade 20 mission? 21 A For purposes of that mission, yes. 22 Q Or did you ask any of the secretaries or 23 administrative people to file these materials for you? 24 A No. I kept my own files. 25 Q And where were those files kept? 23 1 A Kept generally in my office. If they were 2 classified files, they would be in a classified cabinet. 3 If they were unclassified, they were typically kept on my 4 desk. 5 Q Did you have a file cabinet that unclassified 6 materials were kept in? 7 A No, I keep my files either on my back credenza in a 8 sort of accordion folder or I keep my files directly on my 9 desk. I don't have extensive files of everything that occurs 10 in the office. 11 Q Who were the other people that worked with you that 12 attended these eight or nine meetings, if anyone? 13 A No one from my office -- well, I shouldn't say 14 that. Some of the meetings, the larger planning meetings 15 where there were 15 or 20 people in the room, my deputy, 16 Cheryl McQueen, would likely have attended those meetings 17 with me. But no one else from my office would have attended 18 those meetings. 19 Q And Cheryl McQueen would take notes from time to 20 time, correct? 21 A Sure. 22 Q Did you search her notes in response to Judicial 23 Watch's FOIA requests? 24 A Yes. The entire office and whatever was in the 25 possession of any officer that was responsive to Judicial 24 1 Watch's first request was instructed to the staff as well as 2 whatever it is that came out of that, we provided it and we 3 are now doing another search. 4 Q With regard to these eight or nine meetings, did 5 anyone come to these meetings with laptop computers? 6 A I don't recall. 7 Q You don't know one way or the other? 8 A I don't know one way or the other. I don't recall. 9 Q And do you know whether or not people came to 10 these meetings with tape recorders, small hand-held tape 11 recorders? 12 A I certainly saw none. If they were concealed, I 13 didn't know about it, but I knew of no one who was recording 14 any of these meetings. 15 Q Were there minutes prepared of these meetings? 16 A No. Not that I recall. I don't recall anyone 17 preparing a series of minutes that were then distributed to 18 the attendees to then be, of course, you know, put on file to 19 jog one's memory as to what was discussed in subsequent 20 meetings. 21 Q During these meetings, these were planning 22 sessions, correct? 23 A Well, they were strategy sessions. They were -- 24 from that perspective, they were planning sessions. 25 Q So consequently, wasn't it important to record what 25 1 had been accomplished and agreed on in these meetings so the 2 group could move forward in planning and strategizing about 3 the trade mission? 4 A Not necessarily, because in the initial stages of 5 any event like this, much of the discussion is focused on a 6 whole host of alternatives and it's brainstorming, for the 7 most part. I don't take extensive notes on brainstorming 8 sessions. 9 Q But you take notes? 10 A I have taken notes in order to instruct -- in order 11 to once a mission or some event comes to a stage where 12 actions need to be taken to instruct other offices within the 13 department about what direction to take. However, as I 14 mentioned, I have not -- I don't keep those notes because 15 those notes usually were transformed into some other 16 communication. 17 It was very frequent and typical that I would call 18 the embassy two, three, four times a week. In fact, many 19 days, I was on the phone with the embassy every day, 20 instructing them on every detail and specific aspect of a 21 mission. And getting feedback from them about what the 22 mission would look like, who would be involved, what kinds of 23 meetings, a whole host of things. But that's fairly typical 24 of these missions. 25 Q During these eight or nine meetings, was there ever 26 1 any national security information discussed? 2 A You'd have to clarify what you mean by national 3 security information. I don't understand. 4 Q Any classified information that was discussed 5 during these eight or nine strategy meetings. 6 A It could have been that there was a piece of 7 classified intelligence that was brought into focus in the 8 meeting. For instance, China's decision not to pursue a 9 certain project or China's decision from senior levels to 10 erect some impediment to market access. That's the only 11 classified information I can think of being discussed at 12 these meetings. 13 Q Were there ever any national security officers that 14 attended these eight or nine sessions that provided this 15 national security information? 16 A You mean from the Central Intelligence Agency or 17 NSA or -- 18 Q Central Intelligence -- yes, right. 19 A -- any of those? 20 Q Right. 21 A I don't recall anyone from those agencies being 22 represented at these meetings. 23 Q Now, if you took notes on information which was 24 part of this classified material, what procedure, if any, was 25 there at the Commerce Department to handle how those notes 27 1 were stored? 2 MS. BRASWELL: Objection. Asked and answered. 3 JUDGE FACCIOLA: No, no. I don't think so. When 4 did he answer that? 5 MS. BRASWELL: It strikes me that the question is 6 asking him what he did with his notes. 7 JUDGE FACCIOLA: No, that's a different question. 8 The answer is if the witness was at a meeting and classified 9 information was discussed and he took notes of that, was 10 there an existing protocol as to the disposition of those 11 notes, which is, I think, a radically different question. 12 MR. KLAYMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. 13 THE WITNESS: If you're asking what is the policy 14 of the department regarding discussions of classified 15 information and how those discussions were represented in 16 writing, they have to be kept in a safe. But to tell you the 17 truth, I can think of maybe three or four times in my 18 career -- or I should say in my tenure on the China desk, 19 when I have written classified cables. 20 I've written a lot of classified memoranda, but I 21 don't recall writing more than three or four classified 22 cables. Notes for that would be kept in the safe. However, 23 if I -- I would always, usually transpose those into -- or 24 transcribe those into a cable and then -- or also a 25 memorandum and then destroy the notes. Destroying as in 28 1 shredding. 2 JUDGE FACCIOLA: I'm sorry, you said destroy? 3 THE WITNESS: Shred. At the time, the policy of 4 the department on destruction of classified documents was a 5 burn bag process. Now we have a shredder. 6 JUDGE FACCIOLA: In your answers, the word 7 department is in reference to the Department of Commerce? 8 THE WITNESS: That's correct. So notes that 9 contained classified information, which were infrequent, I 10 can't recall what specific notes those might have been, were 11 certainly -- were kept in a classified container. 12 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 13 Q Was there anything in writing about how to handle 14 this classified information if committed to notes at the time 15 of these meetings? 16 A Yes. Well, not relative to the meetings, but 17 guidance relative to any departmental official in the 18 preparation of classified materials is to keep any classified 19 information in what is considered to be a classified 20 container. 21 Whether or not I decided to destroy those draft 22 notes because they were then also transcribed afterwards is 23 my decision and the department does not provide guidance in 24 that regard, as long as the notes or any information that's 25 classified is destroyed in a legitimate fashion. I can't 29 1 just tear it up and throw it in the basket. 2 Q But there's no directive to destroy it, you can 3 keep it as long as it's kept in a secured manner. 4 A You can keep classified information in a secured 5 cabinet. It's very possible to do that. Yes. 6 Q So from time to time you did take notes with 7 national security information in those notes and you kept it 8 in your safe? 9 A I don't recall whether I took any notes that had 10 classified information on them. I recall that I -- as I 11 said, preparing a number of cables during my tenure which 12 were classified. I have done lots of memoranda that are 13 classified. Whether any of the notes that I took out of 14 those meetings were classified, I don't recall. 15 Q When did you start to use a shredder as opposed to 16 a burn bag? 17 A The policy of -- I think we actually do both 18 now and I would have to seek clarification from the 19 department. I think it's possible to do both, but it's only 20 recently when offices individually have been given shredders 21 to destroy classified documents. But I know that it's also 22 possible to discard of classified documents by sending them 23 off to the burn room. So I'm not exactly sure what the 24 current policy is. I know that both are legitimate at this 25 point. 30 1 Q During the time that you've been at the Department 2 of Commerce, has there ever been a policy or protocol about 3 taking classified documents outside of the department 4 building? 5 A You're not allowed to take them outside the 6 building. I mean, I have a clearance. If I'm going to a 7 meeting at another agency, it's fairly common practice -- or 8 I'm going to a meeting at the White House in the Old 9 Executive Office Building or whatever, accompanying one of 10 our principals, it's fairly common practice to take a 11 classified briefing paper with you, whatever classified 12 attachments there are, and then to return that classified 13 material on return back to the safe. But not to take 14 classified materials certainly traveling abroad. 15 Q Since the time you've been at the department, have 16 there been any guidelines in writing as to which documents 17 you could take to meetings outside the building and which you 18 could not? 19 A There may be some guidelines. 20 Q You don't know of any? 21 A But I am not -- I should be familiar with them, 22 however, I'm following standard practice which I know is 23 allow, for those people who have security clearances involved 24 in interagency meetings, you are allowed to carry those 25 documents to the meeting and bring them back. 31 1 Q And the way you know this is through word of mouth, 2 correct? 3 A No, it's through practice. 4 Q Established practice? 5 A That's correct. 6 Q During the time that you've been at the department, 7 are you aware of any formal courses where employees are 8 taught what that standard practice is? 9 A Yes, there is a security briefing for every 10 incoming employee and there are from time to time security 11 refreshers or updates for employees as well. 12 Q When department employees take classified documents 13 out of the building, do they have to clear it with anyone? 14 Do they have to show anyone what it is they're taking out of 15 the building? 16 A No. Not to my knowledge. But I'm not a security 17 specialist. I am commenting on my practices, those of my 18 principals that I am aware of, in attending interagency 19 meetings where classified information is discussed. 20 There is certainly a prohibition on sharing 21 classified information with anyone that does not have a 22 security clearance or anyone that isn't verified to have a 23 security clearance. 24 To verify if someone has a security clearance, you 25 have to check with the security officer in the respective 32 1 agency that you're dealing with. 2 Q You are aware that in the fall of 1996, John Huang 3 was deposed in this lawsuit, correct? 4 A Mm-hmm. 5 Q That was October 26, 1996. You're aware it was in 6 and around that time period, correct? 7 A Roughly, yes. I'm roughly familiar with his being 8 deposed. 9 Q Are you aware of any change in security procedures 10 since that date with regard to taking classified material 11 outside of the department? 12 A I'm not aware of any. That doesn't mean to say 13 that there were not some changes in security. I don't know. 14 I don't think there have been any changes. I think the 15 department felt that the security procedures that applied 16 were sufficient. 17 Q You are aware that after John Huang worked at the 18 Commerce Department he went to work at the Democratic 19 National Committee, correct? 20 A Yes. 21 Q And you are aware that after he began work at the 22 Democratic National Committee, from time to time he came back 23 to the department's headquarters, correct? 24 A I am not aware of that. 25 Q Did you ever see John Huang in the building after 33 1 he left the employment of the Department of Commerce? 2 Building meaning the Commerce Department building? 3 A No. But, then, again, I can't recall. I don't 4 know whether Mr. Huang had a Department of Commerce Federal 5 Credit Union account. It is often the case that former 6 officials who do have an account come back to the building to 7 access that account. If that was the reason he was in the 8 building, I would certainly have no knowledge of it. What 9 I'm saying is I don't recall him ever coming back into the 10 building. 11 Q You are aware that Mr. Huang for a period of time 12 kept his top secret security clearance that he obtained at 13 the Department of Commerce after he left and went work at the 14 Democratic National Committee? 15 A I am not aware of that. 16 Q Assuming that to be the case, do you know of 17 any prohibition of the Department of Commerce that would 18 prevent an employee from sharing classified material with 19 Mr. Huang? 20 A In general, individuals leaving the department lose 21 their security clearance. 22 Q But if you don't lose your security clearance, if 23 you keep it, do you know of any directive that says you can't 24 show them classified material? 25 A In my experience, I don't have any reference point 34 1 in my experience for that. I don't know of anyone who left 2 who also retained their security clearance after leaving. 3 Q Well, my question is not whether you knew of 4 someone who left, but given the fact that someone has a 5 security clearance and retains it after he leaves, you don't 6 know of anything in writing or anything that's been stated to 7 you orally that you can't share classified material with that 8 person, do you? 9 A Well, the only thing I know of is the security 10 procedure is that I am not allowed to share classified 11 information with individuals who do not have a security 12 clearance. 13 Q Otherwise, you can. 14 A If I know that they have a security clearance, that 15 they are actively involved, employed, otherwise dealing with 16 some U.S. Government-related issue and thus have a clearance, 17 then, yes, I would be allowed to discuss security information 18 with them. 19 Q Do you know whether Mr. Huang came back to the 20 Department of Commerce after he went to work for the DNC and 21 removed documents of any kind from the Department of 22 Commerce? 23 A I would have no knowledge of that. 24 Q Do you have any knowledge of Mr. Huang taking 25 documents from Department of Commerce across the street to 35 1 the offices of Stevens, Inc. in the Willard Hotel building at 2 lunchtime when he worked for the department? 3 A No. 4 Q Do you know of anyone who does have that knowledge? 5 A No. 6 Q Have you ever heard that? 7 A No. If you're asking me did I know that he worked 8 there, I knew that he worked across the street from the 9 building, but I certainly have no knowledge whether he took 10 any documents. 11 Q How did you learn that he worked across the street? 12 A I think it was out of just sort of publicly 13 available information. It could have appeared in the 14 Washington Post, it could have appeared once these 15 depositions of Mr. Huang started. It could have been someone 16 in the department who was still left behind that was also 17 part of the Schedule C employees informing me. It could have 18 bene Mr. Meissner. 19 It could have been, you know, other individuals 20 telling me that he had since transferred and left the 21 department and was now resident in the Willard. I had 22 general knowledge of the fact that he was outside the 23 department and had an office in the vicinity. 24 Q Did you have knowledge of that at the time that he 25 was working at the department? 36 1 A No. 2 Q Did you know that he was going across the street at 3 the time he was working at the department to Stevens, Inc.? 4 A Absolutely not. 5 Q Do you know of anyone who did have that knowledge? 6 A Do I know -- 7 Q At the time he worked at the department. 8 A Do I know of anyone who could have possessed that 9 knowledge? 10 Q Yes. 11 A Or do I know of anyone who -- 12 Q Let me ask it that way. Who could have possessed 13 that knowledge. 14 A Well, you know, anybody who keeps a calendar for a 15 principal might have knowledge or should to know their 16 whereabouts. Most, if not all, people in those positions 17 have their secretaries keep calendars. 18 Q In your section of the Commerce Department, part of 19 the International Trade Administration, has there ever been a 20 procedure that if you take documents out of the department 21 you have to list what it is that you're taking out? 22 A You need to clarify what you mean by document. 23 Anything -- 24 Q Anything. 25 A A buck slip? A pad? A folder? 37 1 Q Let's start with anything. 2 A Anything? 3 Q Anything. Let's start there and then we'll narrow 4 it. 5 A No. There is no policy. 6 Q Is there a procedure for listing what you take out 7 of the department if classified? If the document is 8 classified? 9 A There are several procedures that apply to 10 receiving and to giving confidential and secret documents. 11 Those procedures relate to receipts, slips. So if you 12 receive such a document, usually the secret documents, you 13 would have a receipt that you received such a document. Is 14 there a procedure for taking the documents out of the 15 building? 16 I guess you're asking do I notify someone if I'm 17 going to a meeting at the State Department, for instance, and 18 I need a classified document to discuss for purposes of that 19 meeting, is that the question you're asking? 20 Q Correct. Or you just decide you want to take some 21 work home -- 22 A No, I would not take classified documents home. 23 Q Is there anything prohibiting you from doing that? 24 A Because I don't have a container that I can safely 25 put the materials in. I don't have a container at home to 38 1 put those materials in. 2 Q But if you did, you could do it. 3 A No. Because a domicile is not considered to be a 4 safe place for national security information. 5 Q Is that in writing? 6 A I don't know that it's in writing, but it's 7 certainly common practice. 8 Q What I'm saying is if you're taking classified 9 materials out of the department, say you're going to a 10 meeting at the White House that you described. 11 A Right. 12 Q Do you have to list on any type of a -- 13 A No. 14 Q No? A document that you're taking it out? 15 A No. I do not. 16 Q You don't know of anyone else being required to do 17 that since you've worked at the department? 18 A No. It's fairly common practice, standard 19 practice, when going to meetings, interagency, in which 20 classified information is discussed or classified memoranda 21 have been prepared for discussion at that meeting, that 22 individuals take those materials and they don't sign anything 23 when taking those materials out of the building. 24 Q Since Mr. Huang has been deposed, you don't know of 25 any change in that procedure, do you? 39 1 A I don't know of any -- it doesn't mean there isn't 2 one, I don't know of any specific procedure that applies to 3 that. You would have to ask our security office. 4 Q Did you keep a desk calendar? Have you kept a desk 5 calendar since you've worked at the China desk? 6 A My desk calendars are typically the ink pads, 7 blotters, where you write in a particular appointment or 8 whatever and I destroy them after I'm done with them. 9 Q How do the other people in your office keep their 10 schedules? 11 A To my knowledge, in a variety of ways. My deputy 12 keeps it the same way as I do. In other words, by a large 13 blotter. 14 Q Let me limit the question. Let me limit the 15 question to the people who worked with you during the period 16 leading up to and including the China trade missions. How 17 did they keep their schedules? 18 A My secretaries don't keep schedules. They never 19 kept my schedule and they never kept -- they don't keep 20 schedules for anybody in the office. 21 Q Do you know how Mr. Rothkopf kept his schedule? 22 A I would think that Mr. Rothkopf probably had a 23 calendar, but that's speculation on my part. In other words, 24 someone kept his calendar. 25 Q Mr. Garten? 40 1 A Someone kept his calendar. 2 Q Rob Stein? 3 A I would think the same. This is all speculation on 4 my part. 5 Q Melissa Moss? 6 A Possibly somebody else keeping a calendar, but, 7 again, this is speculation on my part. 8 Q You are aware that calendars and schedules are kept 9 by some Department of Commerce employees on their computer? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Do you know of any people leading up to these 12 Chinese trade missions and including these Chinese trade 13 missions that kept their calendars on computer that were 14 involved in the planning and strategic aspects of those 15 missions? 16 A I wouldn't know. 17 Q Do you know of anyone who kept diaries of their 18 events at the Department of Commerce with regard to trade 19 missions or anything else? 20 A Or anything else? I'm sorry, I -- 21 Q Well, let me make that question a little bit more 22 narrow. Do you know of any employees of the Department of 23 Commerce that kept diaries which recorded events in part 24 dealing with trade missions? 25 A Any trade mission or this trade mission? 41 1 Q Let's start with the Chinese trade missions. 2 A For this particular trade mission, I don't know of 3 anyone who kept a diary. That doesn't mean that someone 4 didn't, I just don't know that anyone did that. 5 Q What about for other trade missions? 6 MS. BRASWELL: Objection. 7 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Overruled. 8 MR. KLAYMAN: You can respond. 9 THE WITNESS: Other trade missions? I think I 10 would have to say that I am aware that people have kept 11 diaries, whether it was for trade missions or not, you know, 12 I am aware that people have kept diaries. 13 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 14 Q Who do you know who kept diaries? Who are those 15 people? 16 A Mr. Ginsburg. 17 Q Anyone else? 18 A No. 19 Q How did you learn that Mr. Ginsburg kept a diary? 20 A Hearsay within the department. 21 JUDGE FACCIOLA: You said hearsay within the 22 department? 23 THE WITNESS: Yes. 24 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 25 Q You're talking about William Ginsburg, correct? 42 1 A That's correct. 2 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Just for a second, Mr. Klayman. 3 Sometimes the witness' voice drops and I can't hear 4 him. Are the two of you okay? 5 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 6 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Please keep your voice up, okay? 7 THE WITNESS: Sorry about that. 8 MR. KLAYMAN: Thank you. 9 JUDGE FACCIOLA: You're competing with this bloody 10 fan behind us. 11 I didn't mean to interrupt you, Mr. Klayman. 12 MR. KLAYMAN: That's all right. Thank you. 13 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 14 Q William Ginsburg was the chief of staff to Ron 15 Brown after Rob Stein, correct? 16 A He was the chief -- that's correct. 17 Q And, as such, he did participate in the planning of 18 trade missions? 19 A He was present for a number of meetings that I 20 recall. Yes. 21 Q And he took notes at those meetings from time to 22 time? 23 A I don't recall whether he took notes. 24 Q Did he bring a diary into those meetings? 25 A I don't recall. 43 1 Q And how did you learn, you call it hearsay, that 2 Mr. Ginsburg kept a diary? Who did you hear that from? 3 A I don't recall a specific -- one individual telling 4 me that he kept a diary. I only recall in general that he 5 had kept a diary of every discussion that occurred within the 6 Secretary -- of meetings that he attended. And I don't 7 recall who told me this, in what context it was. 8 It just seemed to be at the time, and this is 9 particularly as depositions were occurring frequently, that 10 there was mention in particular of him keeping a diary. 11 Q The people who told you this showed concern that he 12 kept a diary? 13 A I think they were just basically indicating 14 factually that he had kept a diary. 15 Q Why is it did they bring this up? 16 A I don't know. I mean, that's what I recall the 17 conversation being. 18 Q Did you take the conversation to express 19 trepidation that perhaps these conversations that you were 20 having about planning trade missions were being recorded? 21 A No. No. I certainly didn't approach any of that 22 with any trepidation because at least for the discussions 23 that I was involved in there was to my knowledge nothing 24 discussed that was irregular or in my mind illegal. 25 Q How do you define irregular or illegal? 44 1 A Well, irregular, outside of the bounds of ethical 2 conduct within the department. And perhaps that also applies 3 to the legalities as well. As to what applied to me 4 professionally as a career employee ethically, I do not 5 believe that there was anything that I was involved in that 6 was unethical or illegal. 7 Q Was there ever a discussion in any of the meetings 8 that you attended in planning trade missions as to whether or 9 not the method of selecting trade mission participants was 10 illegal or legal? 11 A The way I came into discussions on selecting trade 12 mission participants was to ask -- people would ask my 13 professional opinion about this or that company, what kinds 14 of projects and interests did they have in China and what 15 were the prospects for this company in concluding this or 16 that contract and whatever. 17 So I was asked to provide factual information about 18 what I knew from the information I had about these companies. 19 That was the extent of the information that I provided on any 20 company that was being considered to be a member of this 21 mission. 22 Q Did you ever sit in in a meeting where the amount 23 of money a company or official of that company donated to a 24 political party was discussed? 25 A No. No. 45 1 Q Did you ever sit in on a meeting where there was a 2 discussion to the effect that if a company had been a 3 supporter of a political party or a candidate that that 4 company would be given some kind of preference to get on the 5 trip? 6 A No. 7 Q Was there ever any mention of politics in any of 8 these meetings? 9 JUDGE FACCIOLA: I think you're going to have to 10 narrow that question. That would involve the Federalist 11 Papers. 12 MR. KLAYMAN: Okay. 13 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 14 Q Was there ever a discussion as to whether a company 15 was a friend of the Clinton administration or not and 16 therefore had a preference to go on the trip? 17 A I didn't participate in any of those discussions, 18 nor did I have any knowledge that such discussions existed. 19 Again, my dimension in these discussions was to provide -- 20 the extent of the discussions I participated in was to 21 provide professional input on these companies, what the 22 prospects were for these companies in given sectors in China 23 and the like. 24 Q Was there ever a discussion as to whether or not a 25 company or its officers had been recommended by a Republican 46 1 Senator or Congressman to go on a trip? 2 A I don't recall. 3 Q Might have been? 4 A Could have been, but I don't recall. 5 Q You are aware that these companies sometimes got 6 recommendations from politicians to go on the trips, are you 7 not? 8 A When you say politicians, you mean Senators and 9 Congressmen? 10 Q Senators and Congressmen, people in the Clinton 11 administration. 12 A Well, I mean, to my knowledge, Senators and 13 Congressmen from both sides of the aisle, as well as state 14 level political officials, governors, state level senators, 15 whatever, often communicate their interest in having a 16 particular company participate in some event which can 17 possibly advance their commercial interests in China, so 18 that's not unusual. Do I know specifically of Senators and 19 Congressmen? No, I don't. 20 Q Were there ever any such discussions during these 21 meetings? 22 A Discussions of? 23 Q About a little bit of a political push from any 24 Senators or Congressmen or others to have companies go on 25 trade trips? 47 1 A I don't recall. 2 Q You can't say one way or the other? 3 A No, I can't say one way or the other. I just don't 4 recall. 5 Q Now, we've talked about these eight or nine 6 meetings. Was there a discussion during these eight or nine 7 meetings about companies that would not be allowed to go on 8 the trade missions, for whatever reason? 9 A I only recall that selection -- that the kind of 10 information that they were most interested in having in 11 making these decisions were those that I gave to you just a 12 moment ago and the prospects for recognizing this or that 13 contract. In other words, quote-unquote, deliverables, 14 outcomes. By virtue of this mission, how much can the 15 Secretary's mission garner for U.S. exports in the 16 consummation of various commercial deals? And so thus a 17 particular company's appeal might be enhanced with certain 18 kinds of commercial opportunities versus others. 19 Q There were discussions about companies that didn't 20 meet the criteria and therefore would not be likely to be 21 selected? 22 A I don't recall participating in a discussion about 23 criteria that would exclude companies. I can only recall 24 that in general what was being sought were companies that 25 could demonstrate that they had a commercial deal that could 48 1 be consummated within the timeframe of the mission that 2 generally signified some significant advance of U.S. 3 exporting, investing, whatever. 4 Q Now, you don't know of how these companies were 5 actually ultimately selected, do you? 6 MS. BRASWELL: Objection. Your Honor, I'm going to 7 object to this continued line of questioning that is not 8 focused on the creation of documents, what kind of notes were 9 taken at these meetings. 10 I've given Mr. Klayman a lot of latitude to ask 11 what was discussed at these meetings, but the discovery in 12 this case is supposed to be on what documents were created, 13 who might have created them, where they went, whether or not 14 they were destroyed, and this seems to be going far afield of 15 that. 16 MR. KLAYMAN: Well, there is -- 17 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Just a minute, Mr. Klayman. 18 So your objection is that the last question was not 19 related to those documents? 20 MS. BRASWELL: That's correct. And that we've 21 given Mr. Klayman a lot of latitude to explore this and this 22 is beyond the scope of discovery in this case. 23 JUDGE FACCIOLA: But as I understand what Mr. 24 Klayman is doing, he's going through this topic by topic and 25 asking general questions. From those questions, I assume 49 1 he's going to ask Judge Lamberth to deduce the inference that 2 because there was a discussion on a particular topic there is 3 the possibility that notes were taken of that discussion and 4 they exist somewhere. So doesn't he have to preface the 5 latter inference by ascertaining what was discussed in a 6 particular meeting? 7 MS. BRASWELL: It seems to me that's a very 8 speculative leap for him to be able to make. What he 9 has to do is find out who took notes and he can ask the 10 individuals and, in fact, has had the opportunity to 11 depose many of these people, as to what they took notes on. 12 And that's what this case is about, not, as Mr. Klayman 13 has tried to make this case, what the criteria was for 14 selecting participants on trade missions. And that's 15 clearly what -- 16 JUDGE FACCIOLA: I'm going to ask the reporter to 17 read back the question. 18 (The reporter read back the record.) 19 JUDGE FACCIOLA: You objected to that question? 20 MS. BRASWELL: That's my memory, is that that's 21 when I objected to the continued line of questioning. 22 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Well, your objection is that 23 asking for information as to whether these particular 24 companies were or were not selected for the trade mission is 25 an inappropriate inquiry at this point because it doesn't 50 1 relate to the destruction of documents. Does it not relate, 2 however, to the creation of documents? 3 MS. BRASWELL: Mr. Klayman has asked, Your Honor, 4 who took notes at that meeting. The substance of those notes 5 and exploring the substance of those notes and why that 6 substance was discussed is not relevant to the creation of 7 notes. 8 In other words, he's certainly entitled to ask 9 who went to the meeting, who was there, who took notes, 10 what happened to those notes, what did you do with your 11 notes, but to go on and explore all of the substance that 12 was discussed at the meeting is beyond the scope of discovery 13 in this case. That doesn't deal with the creation of notes 14 and whether or not those notes were destroyed. 15 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Mr. Klayman? 16 MR. KLAYMAN: Yes, Your Honor. And the Court did 17 discuss this; Your Honor makes reference to it. Judge 18 Lamberth rules in his decision of December 22nd that "This 19 may include out of necessity some inquiry into the creation 20 and handling of documents. To be able to determine whether 21 or not there are likely to be documents that were created and 22 handled, one must know what went on during these meetings to 23 be able to ascertain the substance that was likely committed 24 to writing." And this is discovery. 25 Now, we don't intend, and I agree, to get way out 51 1 here, Your Honor. We're just trying to lay a foundation. 2 That's all. 3 JUDGE FACCIOLA: And the theory you're pursuing 4 now, Mr. Klayman, is that if during the course of the 5 discussions at the meetings there were, for example, 6 discussions of companies that should be excluded, it would 7 then follow that there was at least a theoretical 8 possibility, circumstantial evidence, that some memorandum of 9 that discussion may exist. 10 MR. KLAYMAN: That that was committed to writing. 11 And my next question after this line was going to be was 12 there anything committed to writing to that effect. 13 MS. BRASWELL: Your Honor, he's already asked about 14 whether or not minutes were made of the meetings and he's 15 asked about who took notes at the meeting. It seems to me 16 that he's thoroughly explored what was written about these 17 particular meetings. 18 JUDGE FACCIOLA: I don't agree with you. As I 19 understand Judge Lamberth -- and this may be a very important 20 ruling, Ms. Braswell, so let me be as clear as I can about it 21 -- I read the judge's decision on several occasions; as I 22 understand it, the three permissible topics of discovery are 23 (1) the destruction of documents, (2) the removal of 24 documents from the premises by people who may or may not have 25 bene authorized to do so, a question related to that is the 52 1 mechanism by which they were transcribed, but the third topic 2 of discovery, as I understand it, is whether there is 3 circumstantial evidence of any kind that certain documents 4 existed, and as I understand Judge Lamberth's decision, it is 5 therefore permissible to ask any witness about the meetings, 6 what the topic of the discussion was, to see if that would 7 permit the inference that some memorandum of that discussion 8 took place. 9 Am I misreading the judge's decision? 10 MS. BRASWELL: I think that's too broad, Your 11 Honor. It seems to me that the way he goes about this is to 12 find out who was at the meetings and who took notes and then 13 he can ask those individuals what notes did you take and what 14 did you do with them. It seems to me that that's how you 15 find out how documents were created. 16 JUDGE FACCIOLA: But we also have to understand 17 that while we are on a different topic, we are still dealing 18 with the relatively broad standard for discovery under the 19 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which is likely to lead to 20 the production of relevant evidence. 21 Is it not likely if the witness is asked what a 22 discussion was there is at least a possibility by 23 circumstantial evidence that that discussion was memorialized 24 in some way? 25 MS. BRASWELL: Well, but beyond this witness being 53 1 able to testify to what notes he took and his knowledge of 2 anyone else taking notes, it's too speculative. I mean, he's 3 got the information he needs to get to the relevant evidence, 4 which is who took notes. 5 Yes, he can ask, you know, in general terms what 6 was discussed at the meeting in terms of who -- but once he's 7 gone beyond that, to delve into it in detail I think goes far 8 beyond what the judge has allowed. 9 JUDGE FACCIOLA: I don't think it goes far beyond, 10 and I'm going to overrule your objection -- with the 11 understanding, Mr. Klayman, that as I understand the 12 mechanism we are in here, as Ms. Braswell I think correctly 13 points out, inquiry into what was discussed at the meetings 14 is appropriate insofar as it leads to additional inquiry as 15 to whether that was memorialized or not. 16 MR. KLAYMAN: Exactly, Your Honor. 17 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Do we have that common 18 understanding? 19 MR. KLAYMAN: Yes. 20 JUDGE FACCIOLA: All right. With that 21 understanding, let's proceed. 22 MR. KLAYMAN: Right. And in fact, Your Honor 23 correctly, I believe, read the judge's orders on this where 24 he also states that the Court declines to articulate too 25 narrow a restriction on Judicial Watch's further discovery. 54 1 But that is our intent. Thank you, Your Honor. 2 I don't remember the response, so let me ask the 3 question again, if I can. 4 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Sure. 5 MR. KLAYMAN: Just to get back into the framework. 6 It's faster than finding it on the tape. 7 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 8 Q You do not know of any instances, do you not, of 9 how companies were ultimately selected? 10 A Ultimately? 11 Q Yes. 12 A No. 13 Q And you did not know of any documentation 14 evidencing the ultimate selection of trade mission 15 participants? 16 A Are you saying was there a memoranda circulated as 17 to please provide your opinion and advice as to the selection 18 of these companies? 19 Q Well, let me ask -- 20 A Or some such document? 21 Q Was there such memoranda? 22 A Not that I recall. 23 Q Was there any kind of request in writing or 24 otherwise for anyone at the department to provide his or her 25 advice on how to select companies to go on trade missions? 55 1 A I'm sure there would have been various types of 2 information shared from a variety of sources, whether from 3 our foreign commercial service in Beijing or the other posts 4 in China or our industry offices, the industry sector 5 offices, about the prospects that a particular company had on 6 a particular project in a particular sector. I'm sure that 7 information was provided. 8 Whether it was provided in a single memoranda to 9 the Secretary or anyone saying here is the advice and counsel 10 of the Under Secretary's office on the companies that we 11 believe you should select based on the following criteria, I 12 do not recall the production nor was I asked to produce -- I 13 don't recall producing any such document. 14 I think communications at that time on trade 15 mission possible invitees was done on a sort of piecemeal 16 basis. In other words, as a prospect arose with a particular 17 company, should we or shouldn't we take this company, it 18 wasn't so much in that context, it wasn't should we or 19 shouldn't we take them, what are the possibilities for this 20 company on this project, what does the sector look like in 21 China, it was sort of those kinds of questions. And we would 22 along with other offices provide some input to that effect. 23 If that information was written down, I'm sure it was 24 provided in the last Judicial Watch request. 25 Q But you know of no documentation requesting formal 56 1 recommendations on who to take on trade missions going out to 2 the employees of the department? 3 A I recall providing -- that various offices provided 4 input as to what companies had particular kinds of commercial 5 prospects. Whether that information was represented in one 6 document, I don't recall. 7 I only recall that there were certainly individual 8 instances of conveying this information, whether it was via 9 fax, whether it was via e-mail, whether it was a telephone 10 conversation, whatever. But that's my recollection of how 11 companies were selected for that mission. 12 Q So what you know of is that documentation was to be 13 provided by the staff planning for these trade missions as to 14 the prospects for business deals, but there was to be no 15 actual recommendation that the company itself go on the trip? 16 A We wouldn't -- typically, I wouldn't make a 17 recommendation that said I believe the Secretary should take 18 this company. I would provide information that could 19 substantiate the decision one way or the other, but, you 20 know, we typically don't make those kinds of recommendations. 21 Q But you don't know of any department employee who 22 ever created a writing where they actually recommended that 23 companies go on trade trips? Specific companies. 24 A It could have been at the time, and I have to 25 remember now back in '94, I think our advocacy center existed 57 1 at the time. The advocacy center is a place where projects 2 in general of interest to U.S. suppliers, exporters and 3 investors, are tracked in every major market in the world and 4 typically that center is called upon at the time of admission 5 to bring together all of their pertinent relevant timely 6 information about possible project announcements so that this 7 could be used as guidance to the Secretary's office to 8 select -- not select, but to possibly consider certain 9 companies' participation in a mission. 10 The criteria for selecting companies on missions is 11 completely different now than it was back in 1994. There are 12 now new guidelines. 13 Q But you don't know of any criteria back in 1994 in 14 writing, do you? 15 A No, I don't recall any specific criteria in 16 writing. No. No. 17 Q And you don't know who it was who ultimately made 18 the selections, do you? 19 A You mean one person or a committee or both? 20 Q Okay. I'll ask it that way. 21 A No, I do not. Who ultimately made the decision, 22 either collectively or individually. I do not know. 23 Q And you don't know of any letters or other form of 24 written communication that went out of the department 25 informing companies that were not selected, correct? 58 1 A I'm not aware of communications that were sent 2 perhaps via telephone or in writing or by other means from 3 what I would assume to be the appropriate office to do that, 4 was the Office of Business Liaison. 5 Q Have you ever -- I'm sorry. Go on finish. I 6 didn't mean to interrupt. 7 A That's it. That's all I had. 8 Q Have you ever seen any writing at the department 9 that said that it was Ron Brown and then Mickey Kantor who 10 made the decisions on who went on trade missions? 11 A Did I ever see anything in writing? 12 Q Yes. 13 A To that effect? 14 Q Yes. 15 A No. 16 Q But that was common knowledge, correct? That it 17 was Ron Brown that was going to make the ultimate decision? 18 A I'm not sure how to answer that question. 19 Q Yes or no. 20 A Well, I can't just answer yes or no. I mean, it's 21 not truthful for me to answer yes or no. 22 Q Okay. How would you answer? 23 A I mean, ultimately, the decision of choosing 24 companies to go on missions, one expects a certain amount of 25 prerogative in the Office of the Secretary. 59 1 Now, as I understand the guidelines, you know, that 2 prerogative is pretty much confined and guided by written, 3 publicly available principles. And so -- we're not talking 4 about Secretary Daley, we're talking about Secretary Brown 5 here. 6 Q At the time of Secretary Brown and the trade 7 missions to China, the ones that are the subject of this 8 case -- 9 MS. BRASWELL: Objection. There's subject to this 10 case. There's one China trade mission that's the subject of 11 this case. 12 MR. KLAYMAN: Right. And there are other trade 13 missions as well. 14 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 15 Q But in terms of the Chinese trade missions that's 16 the subject of this case, did you conclude at the time that 17 it was Secretary Brown's prerogative to choose the 18 participants? 19 A Did I conclude myself? 20 Q Yes. 21 A I mean, I certainly have some doubt in my mind 22 whether it was entirely his prerogative, so I'd have to say 23 no. 24 Q Well, whose prerogative was it? 25 A Well, I mean, I have no knowledge of the pressures 60 1 that came to bear on what kinds of companies should go on 2 this mission, nor do I have knowledge of -- I'm going to say 3 pressures, the various other interests involved in insisting 4 that this company or that company go. 5 To go beyond my comments which are largely generic, 6 I have no idea whatsoever if the White House asked that a 7 particular company go. I have no idea whatsoever if another 8 cabinet member asked if a company should go. I have no idea 9 whether a Senator called the Secretary and said I would 10 really like you to take this company. 11 So when you say it was ultimately up to the 12 Secretary to decide one way or the other, I would have to say 13 that a lot of forces came to bear -- I'm assuming a lot of 14 forces came to bear on the selection of companies, and none 15 of which I was particularly privy to. 16 Q Was there ever any discussion at the time, going 17 back to the China trade mission, of what those forces might 18 be with anyone at the department? 19 A Certainly not at the career level. No. 20 Q Did you have any such discussions with people who 21 weren't at the career level? 22 A No, I did not. 23 Q Do you know of anyone who had those discussions? 24 A I do not. 25 Q Did you read reports at the time that large 61 1 political donors were going on the trade missions? 2 A You know, I could have read those reports, as a 3 matter of reading the newspaper, but I don't recall. 4 It certainly did not come to my attention in my 5 official duties at the Department that these individuals were 6 large donors or they were not large donors. 7 MR. KLAYMAN: I'll show you what I will ask the 8 court reporter to mark as Exhibit 1 to this deposition today. 9 This is a Wall Street Journal article of September 10 9, 1994, entitled: "How Ron Brown Picks Who Joins His Trips 11 Abroad Raises Doubts. Commerce Chief Takes Along Many Big 12 Contributors to Democratic Groups. His Selling Skills Win 13 Praise." 14 (Forest Deposition Exhibit 1 was 15 marked for identification.) 16 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 17 Q Do you remember -- 18 MS. BRASWELL: May I have a copy? 19 MR. KLAYMAN: Sure. 20 MS. BRASWELL: Please. 21 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 22 Q Do you remember reading this article, or articles 23 like this, at the time? 24 A Yes. In fact, I remember this article 25 specifically. 62 1 Q This generated some discussion at the Department of 2 Commerce, this article? 3 A You'll have to clarify what you mean by discussion. 4 Q There were people at the Department who discussed 5 this article in this issue, "How Ron Brown Picks Who Joins 6 His Trips." 7 A I certainly don't remember talking with any of the 8 individuals mentioned in this article, nor my immediate 9 superiors, about the allegations made in this article, 10 particularly those pertinent to the DNC. 11 Q Did you talk with people other than your superiors 12 about this? 13 A No, not that I recall. I just, you know, I 14 probably recall, maybe to an officemate or to various other 15 individuals at my level, that such an article had come out, 16 and -- so I was acknowledging the existence of the article. 17 Q Which officemate did you talk to? 18 A It could have been Ms. McQueen. It could have been 19 several other individuals that were in my office at the time, 20 Ms. McCall, Ms. Baker. 21 You know, I -- I honestly don't recall who I would 22 have commented to about this article, or perhaps even inter- 23 agency colleagues at my level in the administration. 24 MR. KLAYMAN: I'll show you another article, which 25 I'll ask the court reporter to mark as Exhibit 2. 63 1 It's a Business Week article of September 12, 1994, 2 the date that we filed our FOIA request with regard to the 3 China trip, entitled: "Clinton Cozies Up to Business. 4 Corporate Gifts with the DNC Reached Unprecedented Levels." 5 (Forest Deposition Exhibit 2 was 6 marked for identification.) 7 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 8 Q Do you remember seeing this article at the time? 9 A Mm-hmm. Yes. 10 Q Do you know of any discussions inside the 11 Department about this article? 12 A Again, it would be in the same context as this 13 article. In other words, acknowledging the existence of the 14 article with colleagues. 15 I certainly did not have any conversations as to 16 whether, in fact, what was alleged in the article was or was 17 not the case within the Department or was exercised by 18 various individuals -- in other words, seeking these 19 donations in one way or the other. 20 Q Now, it's your understanding of these articles that 21 they implied strongly that participants on trade missions 22 were selected because of campaign contributions to the 23 Democratic Party, correct? 24 A Right. 25 Q And that caused you concern at the time, didn't it? 64 1 A You would have to clarify what you mean by caused 2 me concern. 3 Q Troubled you? 4 A You know, I -- are you asking for my professional 5 career reaction to this? 6 Q Any reaction. Your reaction as a -- just a person. 7 A I regard myself as an ethical career servant 8 regardless of who is -- what party is in the White House, and 9 I was -- I felt that my actions relative to this mission, in 10 terms of what was accomplished, as well as the companies that 11 participated was done, to my knowledge, in ethical fashion. 12 So I honestly didn't make any judgments one way or 13 the other about the DNC being involved one way or the other, 14 because I had no knowledge of the DNC, nor did I, to my 15 knowledge, ever speak with any DNC operatives relative to the 16 selection of companies or the mission in general. 17 Q But you say that others at the department did know 18 of these articles, in addition to yourself? 19 A I -- as a matter of receiving the Wall Street 20 Journal and Business Week, yes, because these articles 21 typically are circulated to most officials, usually office 22 directors and above, in a daily Commerce Department news 23 brief. So that's how this stuff was circulated. That's one 24 way. But also in hard copy. 25 Q What I'm trying to get at is, were there people who 65 1 came together and discussed things, either in person or by 2 telephone or written memoranda or e-mail, that discussed 3 these articles and said: "We need to look into this. If 4 this is happening, we have to put a stop to it." 5 A Mm-hmm. Not with me. 6 Q Do you know of anyone else? 7 A No, I do not. I don't know of any convening of 8 meetings in the Department to, quote unquote, "do damage 9 control," or whatever else. It could have happened, but I 10 certainly was unaware of any such meeting, if it occurred. 11 Q You're not a lawyer, correct? No. 12 A No, I am not. 13 Q Okay. And I'm not asking this question in your 14 capacity or non-capacity as a lawyer. But, was it your 15 belief at the time of these articles that it was lawful to 16 take people on trips, trade trips, because they gave campaign 17 contributions to a political party? 18 MS. BRASWELL: Objection. 19 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Sustained. 20 MR. KLAYMAN: I'm not asking for a legal 21 conclusion, Your Honor. I just want to get his state of 22 mind. 23 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Try again. 24 MR. KLAYMAN: Okay. 25 66 1 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 2 Q Was it your state of mind that this was -- if it 3 was true what was being said in these two articles, which 4 were Exhibit 1 and 2 -- that this practice, if the articles 5 were true, was not proper? 6 MS. BRASWELL: Objection. 7 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Overruled. 8 THE WITNESS: I'm really at a loss to tell you sort 9 of what my emotional reaction was at the time. I don't 10 recall. 11 You know, I -- I, in my capacity as a professional 12 career servant, I look at my duties in a fashion to carry out 13 administration policy to advance U.S.-China commercial 14 relations in a way that benefits the U.S. economy. 15 Articles such as these, which are frequent on most 16 missions to China -- there's a lot of criticism about the 17 U.S.-China relationship. I guess, as a professional working 18 on China relations, I became very much used to these kinds of 19 articles. They occur today. They occur on a very regular 20 basis. 21 So, in my professional capacity, working on China, 22 I was not surprised that such an article could come out. I 23 don't really have a moral opinion one way or the other about 24 this. I'm apolitical in my perspectives on, you know, how 25 this or that party looks at participating in U.S.-China 67 1 relations. So, you know, I don't have a judgment. 2 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 3 Q So it's your position that career civil servants of 4 the Department are to execute on what they have to do but not 5 question it. 6 MS. BRASWELL: Objection, Your Honor. 7 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Sustained. 8 MS. BRASWELL: This goes beyond discovery scope. 9 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Sustained. 10 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 11 Q I'm trying to get at, was there some kind of 12 response inside the Department about these articles? 13 MS. BRASWELL: Objection, Your Honor. 14 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 15 Q In writing, in documentary form? 16 MS. BRASWELL: Objection, Your Honor. These came 17 in after his FOIA request was made. The FOIA request is the 18 cut-off date for any documents. He can ask about any 19 documents that were in existence or were created prior to his 20 FOIA request, but not after his FOIA request. 21 MR. KLAYMAN: Unless I'm mistaken, they didn't come 22 in afterwards. One was September 9th of 1994 and the other 23 was September 12th of 1994. 24 MS. BRASWELL: All right. Well, anything -- 25 MR. KLAYMAN: So they were actually out there, Your 68 1 Honor, at the time of our first FOIA request. 2 JUDGE FACCIOLA: I think the bottom-line question - 3 - and I'll sustain the objection -- but if the witness can, 4 to sum this up, did you see any documents of any form, 5 including written correspondence, e-mail, or anything else, 6 which related to the existence of these articles or the 7 information contained in them, while you were at the 8 Department of Commerce? 9 THE WITNESS: Not that I recall. 10 MR. KLAYMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. 11 THE WITNESS: Let me clarify that. I said that 12 these documents were circulated. They have been circulated 13 on a daily basis within the Commerce Department in the news 14 highlights. And so did I see the documents? Yes. 15 JUDGE FACCIOLA: But more to the point, did you see 16 a document about them, using the word "document" to 17 include -- 18 THE WITNESS: Not that I recall. 19 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Listen to me. Comprehensively, to 20 include correspondence and e-mail, a handwritten note -- 21 THE WITNESS: Not that I recall. 22 JUDGE FACCIOLA: -- somebody wrote on the article, 23 "This is a problem, see me?" Do you ever remember anything 24 like that? 25 THE WITNESS: Not that I recall. 69 1 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Mr. Klayman. 2 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 3 Q In the course of planning the China trade mission, 4 did you ever have contact with a Bernard Schwartz of Loral 5 Corporation? 6 A In the context of planning the mission or the 7 context of the mission itself? 8 Q Planning. 9 A I -- I don't remember if the Secretary may have had 10 a meeting with Bernie Schwartz and I was involved in the 11 meeting. 12 It could have been that such a meeting occurred. 13 There were meetings with the Secretary of various companies 14 interested in participating in the mission, and I honestly 15 don't remember if he met with Bernie before -- Bernie 16 Schwartz -- before the mission and I was in that meeting, or 17 I knew about the meeting. I honestly can't recall. 18 Q Now, Bernie Schwartz was and is the CEO of Loral, 19 correct? 20 A I don't know that he -- he is still the CEO, but he 21 was the CEO. 22 Q And he went on that China trade mission in the fall 23 of '94? 24 A Correct. In the -- yes, in the summer of '94. 25 Q You had at least one meeting with Bernie Schwartz 70 1 and Secretary Brown concerning his participation, his 2 company's participation in the trade mission? 3 A I don't -- I said I didn't recall whether such a 4 meeting had occurred. 5 Q Do you think it may have occurred? 6 A It could have occurred, but I don't recall, at the 7 time. I certainly have met Bernie Schwartz. I was on the 8 mission with him. I talked to him. So I know about -- I 9 know Bernie Schwartz. 10 But I don't remember participating in a meeting. 11 I'm not saying a meeting could not have existed and I wasn't 12 there, or and I was there, but I just don't recall. 13 Q If such a meeting took place, would it have been 14 you, Bernie Schwartz, and Secretary Brown, or would there 15 have been others present, given the ordinary course of the 16 way things worked at the Department? 17 A Typically, it would have involved, certainly, Mr. 18 Rothkopf, Mr. Garten, possibly Ms. Moss, and very likely 19 myself. 20 Q Would other company executives have been present at 21 the meeting, or would it have been just Mr. Schwartz, in the 22 ordinary course? 23 A For CEO-related meetings, and again, I can't recall 24 if he met with Mr. Schwartz, but for any CEO-related meeting, 25 you would expect usually one or two other individuals to be 71 1 accompanying the CEO. 2 Who those individuals are, you know, it's typically 3 the vice president of government relations here in Washington 4 for that company, and, you know, a variety of other people. 5 Q And typically, people would take notes at those 6 meetings? 7 A Typically, people would take notes at the meeting. 8 Do I recall -- first off, I don't recall any meeting. Do I 9 recall -- It's hard to ask me if I recall anybody taking 10 notes at a meeting I don't remember. But -- 11 Q But you do recall going to meetings where corporate 12 executives and Ron Brown were present, about trade missions? 13 A Yeah, but I actually don't recall which meetings. 14 Q You do recall going to some meetings concerning the 15 China trip in '94, correct? 16 A Yes. And in fact, one -- one in particular comes 17 to mind, now. 18 Q And who is that? 19 A It was a meeting organized by the U.S.-China 20 Business Council. Now, wait a minute. This could have been 21 for the '94, but it was -- it also could have been for the 22 '96. It may have been for the '96 mission. 23 But in any event, if I'm allowed to -- I recall a 24 meeting with the vice chairman of Amoco and Michael Jordan of 25 Westinghouse. And one other CEO was there, whose name I 72 1 don't recall, but I think Robert Capp, the president of the 2 U.S.-China Business Council, was there, as well. 3 Again, I don't remember whether it was in the lead- 4 up to the '96 mission -- I'm sorry -- the '95 October trip, 5 or it was for the -- for the mission in '94. 6 MR. KLAYMAN: I'm going to show you a document 7 which I will ask the court reporter to mark as Exhibit 3. 8 It's a document entitled, "Delegation List, 9 Presidential Business Development Mission to China, August 26 10 to September 3, 1994." 11 (Forest Deposition Exhibit 3 was 12 marked for identification.) 13 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 14 Q Have you seen this document before? It bears the 15 Bates numbers 03AB3597, consists of two pages, 1 and 2, with 16 the same Bates number. 17 A Mm-hmm. Yes, I -- 18 Q You've seen that? 19 A -- am familiar with this document, yes. 20 Q Do you know who prepared this document? 21 A It could have been the Secretary's advance office. 22 And I honestly don't remember if our office had a 23 hand in some draft of this document. I don't recall. But I 24 remember specifically this document. In fact, I actually 25 think it appeared in the briefing book. 73 1 So if it appeared in the briefing book, my office 2 would have had some possession of the document. 3 Q And it lists the various participants on this trade 4 mission to China, correct? 5 A Correct. 6 Q In fact, you're listed as number 6 on the USGDOC 7 delegation, correct? 8 A Yes, but the number is insignificant. 9 Q The fact that you're listed as 6? 10 A Correct. 11 Q Should you be listed higher or lower? 12 A No. It's all in alphabetical order. 13 Q Now, this does document refresh your recollection 14 as to whether or not this meeting involved Michael Jordan of 15 Westinghouse -- and I to your attention to the business 16 delegation section, on Page 2 -- whether that meeting that 17 you attended with Mr. Jordan concerned this particular trade 18 mission to China, more specifically? 19 A The meeting that I -- I recall, the purpose of that 20 meeting was to talk in very general terms about U.S.-China 21 relations, U.S.-China commercial policy, the things that the 22 Secretary ought to try and achieve in his dialogue with 23 senior officials, and in general, how to strategize for this 24 mission. 25 And it was -- if I am making the right reference 74 1 here -- again, I want to be on record, it could have been 2 from '95, October '95, but it was very likely for this 3 mission -- it was to just generally talk about strategizing 4 for trade mission. And so that was the purpose. 5 Q Now, I take it that when Secretary Brown sat in on 6 this meeting -- 7 A Right. 8 Q -- that he had somebody there that was taking 9 notes for him. 10 A I don't remember who from his staff was there. It 11 could have been Ginsberg -- no -- yeah. It could have been 12 Ginsberg. It could have been -- I don't know whether Stein 13 had left by that point. I think Stein had left after, before 14 '95. I honestly don't remember who was taking any notes. 15 Q Now, it was Secretary Brown's practice to have 16 somebody in those meetings to record what was going on, 17 correct, in writing? 18 A Are you asking was there an official notetaker for 19 this meeting? 20 Q No, just whether there was somebody that was there 21 that the Secretary would have come that would keep notes of 22 what happened, so it could be recorded afterward, so there 23 could be follow-up letters, correspondence, whatever. Surely 24 he must have had somebody -- 25 A Various individuals in the meeting very likely took 75 1 notes, including myself. 2 Q But I'm asking specifically about Secretary Brown. 3 A Right. 4 Q Did you ever see Secretary Brown take notes? 5 A Yes. I often remember him writing, sometimes on 6 his briefing papers. But, you know, where those briefing 7 papers went afterwards, I don't know, because we didn't get 8 the briefing papers back afterwards. 9 Q Did he frequently have these meetings in his 10 office? 11 A This one in particular was in the conference room. 12 This was not in his office. 13 Q But he had some in his office? 14 A Sure. 15 Q Sometimes he would sit at his desk during these 16 meetings, correct? 17 A I don't remember him sitting at his desk. I always 18 remember him sitting at his chair, in the sitting area. 19 Q Did he have a conference table in his office, a 20 little one? 21 A I think he had a small table, but I don't -- I 22 don't recall. There have been several Secretaries since 23 then. 24 Q Have you ever met a Barbara Schmitz? 25 A Barbara Schmitz? 76 1 Q This was one of Secretary Brown's assistants. 2 A Yes. 3 Q She's a Caucasian American. 4 A I can't recall what she looked like. But I -- yes. 5 Q Blond hair? You remember her?